A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[NYcarbineer]

So... be honest... When the laws precluding incestuous homosexuality are lifted... Are you going to go to your neighbor's son and grandson's wedding?

Who said I wanted to normalize incest? Hmm? What does incest have to do with this discussion? You can't answer it.

Be honest, did I ever advocate for the normalization of homosexuality or incestuous behavior?

Answer this question or forfeit the point. Do it now.

By your absurd definition of 'equal protection' you have to say that incestual marriage is constitutionally protected. If you're not saying so, then you're a hypocrite.

LOL- I love it when homophobes drag that strawman out.

By your absurd definition, you have to say that mixed race marriage is not constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you are a hypocrite.

And before you go all "that was about race"- the State of Virginia was making arguments just like yours at the time.

If the State of Virginia had said in regards to "Mixed Race marriage bans" and the equal protection argument":

"By your absurd definition of 'equal protection']in regards to mixed race marriage] you have to say that incestuous marriage is constitutionally protected. If you are not saying so, then you're a hypocrite."

Were the Lovings hypocritical when they fought to be legally married- and they didn't also fight for incestuous marriage?

No- of course not- every case is its own case. The case in Loving v. Virginia was about bans on mixed race marriage, the current cases are about bans on same gender marriage- each stands on its own merits.

If you want to pursue the right to marry you mother, you can do what the Lovings did and what same gender couples are doing- go to the court and make the argument that bans on son's marrying their mother are unconstitutional.

Each issue is distinct- and same gender marriage is not mixed race marriage is not incestuous marriage- but regardless ANYONE is entitled to argue for constitutional protections.

Meh meh meh momophobes (mocking). Meh meh meh mrawman (mocking more). Shut your face. You want to talk pretending; the 14th amendment NEVER regarded people's choice of sexual lifestyle. And it's frankly quite clear. I think the writers of it must've been pretty wise. But corruption may win out.

The 14th 'regarded' equal protection, which covers all equal protection issues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let SCOTUS know, TGG, because your nonsense grows old.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nature has nothing to do with it. You even admitted that.

Nature has nothing to do with human physiological design?

LOL!

(Reader... You should probably go at this point. There's nothing remaining of this cult's argument except for them to repeat the endless litany of idiocy. But you should now have a firm understanding of the abyss of evil that this cult represents. And that's all that the exercise is designed to demonstrate. It just gets rather sad from here on out.)

Nature made it possible for same sex couples to experience sexual pleasure no different than what opposite sex couples experience.

 

[RosieS]

Kudos to Templar for taking the words: with Freedom and Justice for ALL - seriously.

Regards from Rosie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, Rosie, TK rang Keys' bell.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

THEGREATGATSBY SAID:

“[T]he 14th amendment NEVER regarded people's choice of sexual lifestyle.”

No one ever said it does.

But it was the intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons in the United States be afforded due process and equal protection of the law, including same-sex couples and access to marriage law.

Moreover, the Liberty Clause of the 5th Amendment affords citizens the right to make decisions and choices concerning one's private life absent interference from government, incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Both the Framing Generation during the Foundation Era and the Framers of the 14th Amendment sought to codify in the Constitution the inalienable and fundamental right to self-determination immune from government attack, be that attack from either the Federal government or from state government. (Lawrence v. Texas)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature made it possible for same sex couples to experience sexual pleasure...

Nature made it possible for same sex couple to mutilate each others genitals... So from THAT we can know that 'what nature makes possible' is not a sound basis for establishing cultural standards.

If you were a person capable of sound, objective reason, you would have some means to understand that.

I would ask if you understand, but you've made it clear that you do not, therefore your input, is irrelevant.

(Reader, do you see why the Ideological Left is what it is and why it is ALWAYS a failure of sound judgment to ever allow someone infected with that perverse reasoning to every get anywhere NEAR any position of influence, let alone power?

As it stands, homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological standard, it deviates as FAR FROM THAT STANDARD AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... a full 180 degrees, yet the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality claim that such is perfectly normal.

And it is in that profound deceit, at the foundation of that deviancy that we can know that homosexuality is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Viable societies do not alter the nucleus of their culture in order to accommodate those addled by mental disorder.

And it is from that which we can know, should the Supreme Court of the US decide to do so, that the United States is no longer a viable culture and is headed directly for the catastrophic consequences which should reasonably be expected, where a culture would allow perverse reasoning anywhere near the power of governance.

But... I suppose every now and then humanity must re-learn the "WHY" to the age old question: "Mommy Why have homosexuals been locked in the closet for 99.99999~% of human history?"

The answer to which is: "Honey, because Homosexuality is a manifestation of evil and like any evil, the consequence of tolerating it is Chaos, Calamity, Catastrophe ... death and destruction."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THEGREATGATSBY SAID:

“[T]he 14th amendment NEVER regarded people's choice of sexual lifestyle.”

No one ever said it does....

It deceitfully says, just prior to saying that it does.

 

[Mr.Right]

H

Nature has nothing to do with it. You even admitted that.

Nature has nothing to do with human physiological design?

LOL!

(Reader... You should probably go at this point. There's nothing remaining of this cult's argument except for them to repeat the endless litany of idiocy. But you should now have a firm understanding of the abyss of evil that this cult represents. And that's all that the exercise is designed to demonstrate. It just gets rather sad from here on out.)

Nature made it possible for same sex couples to experience sexual pleasure no different than what opposite sex couples experience.

Nature made it possible for same sex couple to mutilate each others genitals... So from that we can know that 'what nature makes possible' is not a sound basis for establishing cultural standards.

If you were a person capable of sound, objective reason, you would have some means to understand that.

I would ask if you understand, but you've made it clear that you do not, therefore your input, is irrelevant.

(Reader, do you see why the Ideological Left is what it is and why it is ALWAYS a failure of sound judgment to ever allow someone infected with that perverse reasoning to every get anywhere NEAR any position of influence, let alone power?

As it stands, homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological standard, it deviates as FAR FROM THAT STANDARD AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... a full 180 degrees, yet the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality claim that such is perfectly normal.

And it is in that profound deviancy that we can know that homosexuality is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Viable societies do not alter the nucleus of their culture in order to accommodate those addled by mental disorder.

And it is from that which we can know, should the Supreme Court of the US decide to do so, that the United States is no longer a viable culture and is headed directly for the catastrophic consequences which should reasonably be expected, where a culture would allow perverse reasoning anywhere near the power of governance.

But... I suppose every now and then humanity must re-learn the "WHY" to the age old question: "Mommy Why have homosexuals been locked in the closet for 99.99999~% of human history?"

The answer to which is: "Honey, because Homosexuality is a manifestation of evil and like any evil, the consequence of tolerating it is Chaos, Calamity, Catastrophe ... death and destruction."

Historically, every nation that has openly embraced homosexuality has come to ruin within a few generations.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's the whole thing where Christ discriminates by offering humanity God's grace and informs those who reject it, eternity in incomprehensible anguish.

Nope. He died for ALL of mankind. His grace is available to those who choose to take advantage of it, he never said his grace was available to one group over the other. Those who choose otherwise will suffer "incomprehensible anguish." Jesus give everyone the choice.

There's where God discriminated against the tribes who rejected his law... Have ya heard of God's profound discrimination against HUMANITY... in the Great Flood?

They made the choice to reject his law. He didn't discriminate against them on the outset (see a common theme here? It's all about choice). And how can God discriminate against the entire human race? His judgments are exacted on everyone alike. God is impartial, Keys. Whether through mercy or wrath he doesn't delineate between anyone.

Or perhaps the discrimination demonstrated at Sodom and Gomorra?

Ahh, but when he told a certain woman not to look back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for risk of being turned into a pillar of salt, she chose to disobey God and thusly reaped the consequences of her choice. Disobedience has consequences. You need to remember that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We can believe the Christ or we can believe Keys.

Not both, in this case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

I agree! That's the whole thing! I agree!

But if people really do value the Constitution, they need to remember it applies to every law that is voted on by the states and passed by the state, likewise with the federal government, that includes bans on gay marriage. And once again, it matters not my opinion on the subject, the Constitution is the final authority, not you, not me, not pro gay or anti gay, the Constitution.

Have you not been listening at all in the past 24 hours?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But there are two amendments that keep the federal government, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURTS, out of the issue of marriage.

So, why did states feel that they could use government to do just that? What are these "amendments" you speak of?

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

Of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys does not listen because he is to eager to tell everyone else what they must believe and do.

He will not allow himself to be taught good principles.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Absent consensus, Christians have no 'argument' their faith 'condemns' homosexuality.

Of course, Christian denominations remain at liberty to interpret their faith as they see fit, as has been the Christian tradition for more than 500 years; but no Christian is in a position to admonish a fellow Christian whose denomination affords marriage to same-sex couples as a 'heretic,' nor may Christians seek to use their faith as an 'exemption' from just and proper secular laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Heretic?

Well, Christ said that those who harm children would be better off tying themselves to a millstone and throwing that into the depths of the sea... and sexual abnormality explicitly preys upon children.

So.. accepting such, is heresy.

And as a Christian, I just declared such to be heresy, therefore, it turns out the clueless barrister is demonstrated to be DEAD-WRONG... again.

See how easy that is?

How does same sex marriage prey on children?

Yes, let's pretend this question hasn't been answered over and over. Let's keep asking questions and not listening to the answers. That's a great way to learn from others.

 

[featherlite]

Ive pretty much always thought this also Templar. People just wanting equal rights is not the problem. I will never consider it a holy union ( man + woman = a new life) but its none of my business what others do.
When the subject gets brought up over and over..and over,,, nasty things are bound to get said.
Disagreeing shouldn't be looked down on . It doesn't mean hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course.

Of course they don't. The 14th Amendment overshadows them both.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

I agree! That's the whole thing! I agree!

But if people really do value the Constitution, they need to remember it applies to every law that is voted on by the states and passed by the state, likewise with the federal government, that includes bans on gay marriage.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

 

[Mr.Right]

So, once again, why would you use government to ban gay marriage?

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

I agree! That's the whole thing! I agree!

But what I don't agree with is making laws that discriminate against people; whether they be gay, straight, black, white, Christian or Muslim. There are always exceptions to that of course. If people really value the Constitution, they need to remember it applies to every law that is voted on by the states and passed by the state, likewise with the federal government.

Have you been listening at all in the past 24 hours?

I have to wonder why the Constitution grants the freedom to follow ones conscience, except for Christians. At least according to the gay community. Why is that? Christian persecution in this country is on the rise. People need to wake up. If our government can take away the rights of Christians, they can do it to anyone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But there are two amendments that keep the federal government, INCLUDING FEDERAL COURTS, out of the issue of marriage.

So, why did states feel that they could use government to do just that? What are these "amendments" you speak of?

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

Of course.

Sorry. But States are also governed by the 14th. You cannot pass a law that discriminates against one group or the other. Surely you can see that? The 10th Amendment does not bestow unlimited power on the States, it simply allows them to take on power not relegated to the Government. Now, passing an unconstitutional law is not a power relegated to anyone.

As far as the 9th Amendment goes, it mentions how nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to deny or disparage the rights of the people (emphasis on the people). You cannot use the Constitution to stop someone from doing something that isn't harmful to you or to anyone else. You along with the States who passed gay marriage bans in fact are misconstruing the Constitution to deny a group of people their rights, which goes against the very spirit of the amendment.

Please, I have a very good knowledge of the functions of the Constitution.